Thank you and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 34.

You'll notice that the notice has been amended. At the end of the last meeting we were in the debate and discussion on a motion from Monsieur Guimond. I hope that all members have the amended motion in front of them. I don't know if we need to reintroduce it, but I would ask you to read it and make sure that everybody is either comfortable or prepared to put forward their position.

I've just had a chance to read the new motion. First of all, I don't necessarily agree with passing the motion anyway. But if we are going to study the consequences of noise caused by airport operations in urban areas as well as all other problematics linked to the quality of life of the population, is that problematics linked to the quality of life of the population in regard to airports, or is it in regard to depression, crime, and all those other things that are there? It's not specific enough. First of all, I don't know why we wouldn't just study airport noise, if that's the issue, and see what other things relate to it. If it's airport noise and other issues that are brought forward, then let's study that.

But frankly, I've already agreed with Mr. Guimond that we'll study this as long as we can have extra meetings. As long as all these meetings that we have in relation to airport noise are extra and beyond the scope of the normal meetings of the committee, I have no problem with it. But frankly, I think what we're going to find, as I said before, is that this particular issue has been studied and studied, and what we're going to find after we hear from the department is that there really is not much that can be done about it, unless we want to shut down airports and quite frankly devastate the economy of this country.

I have had a chance to find both French and English of “The Economic Impacts of the Member Carriers of the National Airlines Council of Canada”, and I believe that has been submitted. I do invite all members to read that prior to any study on noise or whatever else we're going to study in relation to that, because they will find the impact of airports on this country is quite dramatic. They are in a very sensitive position right now vis-à-vis the economy as it is. So I think we should keep that in mind on all issues.

But certainly what I would recommend at this stage is to amend the motion so it actually reads that we're going to be studying things relating to airports, or airlines or airways or airplanes, which is not clear—at least in English it's not clear. Then if you have the department here, listen to the department, listen to what they say about it, and then decide where to go from there. Maybe ask the department, is it noise or the yellow bricks of ice coming down? What are the issues that people complain about? We have the Canadian Transportation Agency that receives complaints, so why don't we invite them along with the department the first time and talk to them about noises or other complaints they receive, and then see where we go from there?

But as I said to Monsieur Guimond, if he wants to study this, that's no problem. As long as we do it at extra meetings, we'll agree to it.

I'm prepared to delete the words "as well as all other problematics linked to the quality of life of the population" in order to secure the committee's consent. My primary objective was to address the noise issue. If this wording receives the committee's consent, I can leave it that way. However, I won't tear up my shirt, particularly since it is new, over the issue of including the words "all other problematics".

I agree with Mr. Jean. I have no objection to us adding the following words at the end of the motion: "that the Committee report no later than December 15 and hold additional meetings". The idea is to find a way to coordinate our respective agendas. We could start the study right away. If you want us to set a date, it can be December 15. The committee can thus immediately start its work on the question, without mentioning the December 15 deadline. I'm flexible.

I want us to find a way to study it. We have to consider the list of witnesses who will be speaking on Bill C-42. I've spoken with other colleagues who also have concerns. We're holding two meetings a week, and we'll have to conduct the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. So we won't have the option of holding additional meetings. That is my view.

Mr. Chair, as Mr. Jean mentioned, either we shut down the airports or we study noise. I don't think that's an issue. The issue is if Mr. Jean was recently in my part of the world, if he would have gone and listened to the people in Richmond, Surrey, Delta, and those local municipalities, he would change his view. The “my way or the highway” approach will not work because we have to incorporate the public input into what we are doing here as their elected representatives when it comes to quality of life. He raised this. The quality of life we are going to study is associated with the noise factors that we have. In fact, we are not going beyond the impacts of the airline noises, of the airport noises. That is exactly where I want to go.

I can tell you that it's quite a major issue, particularly for the municipalities that are abutting the airports. I don't think we should shut down this study. Whether we have it now or whether we have it when we come back in January, we don't have to rush to necessarily finish this by December 15. We are busy with some other things. I would love to see this done when we come back in January.

Monsieur Guimond, I've looked at this and I recommend a change on it that would make a lot more sense. I'll read the entire thing:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the committee study the consequences of noise and other negative issues caused by airport operations in urban areas linked to the quality of life of the population and that it report its observations and recommendations, including recommendations related to an appropriate regulatory response, to the House.

Is that satisfactory to you? All I've done is change the words around, but it I think it has a much better meaning and it's much more clear and precise, in English, anyway.

If that's satisfactory, I see no problem with it not going forward and I'm prepared to agree to any date that you would like, Mr. Guimond, as long as it's outside of the normal course of our business here.

Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Jean referred to negative issues. Is that correct? Did you use the term "negative"?

I wouldn't want us to go on an airport hunt. I want noise to be regulated and for there to be appropriate regulation, consistent with Mr. McCallum's amendment, which concerns regulatory changes respecting noise management. However, I don't want to talk solely about the negative consequences of airports. I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression we would like to shut down the airports. An airport has to be seen as an instrument for economic development. A number of companies come and settle in regions where there are airports. I don't like the expression "negative issues".

Let's just take out the word “negative” and just say “and other issues”.

Mr. Guimond, I'd prefer just studying noise, to be honest. I think it would be much better to do that. If we want to study other things we can change it. We don't have to have a motion to that effect. Then I would just say let's take out “and other negative issues”, which I put in after “noise”...“caused by airport operations in urban areas linked to the quality of life”, but just take out “as well as other problematic”. In English it doesn't make sense. It's just that in English it doesn't make sense at all.

Mr. Guimond, honestly, I'm prepared to set a meeting date right now, tonight if you want, if you want to study this, or next week, any night of the week. As far as I'm concerned, I'm ready to study anytime.

That's not a problem. I didn't introduce the motion to please my grandfather who died 50 years ago. There's a problem.

Mr. Jean, find out about me. I've been a whip for 10 years, and I've come into work at 6:45 every morning and left at 8:00 every evening. Don't think you'll be punishing me by adding additional meetings. It's so boring here in Ottawa that that's virtually all there is to do. I'm prepared to hold meetings night and day. I don't know whether you think you're punishing me. No, I'm quite ready. It's just that it's not possible this afternoon because I'll be catching a plane at 4:15 p.m. I won't be available this evening, but, after mass on Sunday morning, there's no problem.

I'll speak to your offices before we fix the dates. But I will start setting them up as early as next week, with input from your offices, because it wouldn't be good to have a meeting with unavailability of members.

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, there's an issue that's been identified in certain airports and areas and regions. It does not seem to be a totally universal circumstance. Will we confine the witness list to those areas that have actually pre-identified where a noise problem potentially exists, or will we broaden this in the interest of inclusion? My point would be to target this at areas that have been pre-identified as having a potential noise issue rather than....

As chair, I do get a lot of the letters that deal with that specific issue, and I do forward them, through the clerk. I think we can identify very closely where those issues are taking place. I will focus on that initially until I get further direction.

Mr. Guimond, that actually allows the committee to target its work to those regions and areas that have pre-identified a problem. I understand that in B.C. and Quebec, in particular, this is a very serious issue. It's less serious in other parts of the country. So if we have a broad-based study and call witnesses from Manitoba and Saskatchewan and so on, it will slow down and turn down the work of the committee and prevent testimony from those areas from being heard. That said, you will receive a lot of representation from areas that did not necessarily voice a concern before. As chair, you'll make sure that the witness list stays targeted towards those areas.

This is a different issue, but it's a business item. I'm starting to get a little bit concerned about when we're going to see these municipal people on the deadline issue. I'd like to propose that we might have a meeting on that subject with some witnesses on Wednesday, December 1.